Philosophy Quiz: Problem Of Evil
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Problem Of EvilQuestion 1 of 20

Consider two claims:

  1. "It is logically impossible for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God to coexist with the specific evil E."

  2. "The existence of the specific evil E, given its nature and context, renders the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God highly improbable." What is the primary difference in the argumentative burden between Claim 1 and Claim 2?

Claim 1 must show a conceptual contradiction, while Claim 2 must show that E serves no greater good we can conceive of.
Claim 1 is concerned with moral evil, while Claim 2 is concerned with natural evil.
Claim 1 can be defeated by a possible explanation for E, while Claim 2 requires a definitive, true explanation for E.
Claim 1 is a deductive argument about possibility, while Claim 2 is an emotional argument about suffering.
← Back to quizzes

Philosophy Quiz

Philosophy Quiz: Problem Of Evil

Practice Problem Of Evil in Philosophy with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Problem Of Evil, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Philosophy.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Consider two claims:

  1. "It is logically impossible for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God to coexist with the specific evil E."

  2. "The existence of the specific evil E, given its nature and context, renders the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God highly improbable." What is the primary difference in the argumentative burden between Claim 1 and Claim 2?

  1. Claim 1 must show a conceptual contradiction, while Claim 2 must show that E serves no greater good we can conceive of. (correct answer)
  2. Claim 1 is concerned with moral evil, while Claim 2 is concerned with natural evil.
  3. Claim 1 can be defeated by a possible explanation for E, while Claim 2 requires a definitive, true explanation for E.
  4. Claim 1 is a deductive argument about possibility, while Claim 2 is an emotional argument about suffering.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Claim 1 represents the logical problem of evil, which carries the burden of proving a formal, conceptual contradiction. It's an all-or-nothing deductive claim. Claim 2 represents the evidential problem of evil. Its burden is to establish that a particular evil is likely gratuitous (serving no overriding good), which then functions as strong evidence against God's existence. This is an inductive, probabilistic task. B is incorrect, as both argument forms can be applied to either moral or natural evil. C has the burdens reversed: the logical problem (Claim 1) can be defeated by showing a mere possibility that resolves the contradiction (a 'defense'), whereas the evidential problem (Claim 2) is often countered by a plausible explanation (a 'theodicy'). D incorrectly characterizes Claim 2 as emotional; while it deals with suffering, it is structured as a probabilistic, evidence-based argument.

Question 2

J.L. Mackie's influential formulation of the logical problem of evil argues that the theist's position is contradictory. To make the contradiction explicit, he claims the theist implicitly accepts additional premises. Which of the following is one such premise that Mackie identifies as part of the inconsistent set?

  1. Evil is merely a privation of the good and has no real existence.
  2. A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. (correct answer)
  3. The existence of gratuitous suffering makes God's existence improbable.
  4. Some evil is a necessary condition for the existence of certain greater goods.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. J.L. Mackie argued that the contradiction in theism isn't immediately obvious from {God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent, Evil exists}. He proposed that theists are committed to additional principles, such as 'A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can' and 'There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do'. These premises, when combined with the others, generate an explicit contradiction. A is a premise from the Augustinian theodicy, a response to the problem. C is the central idea of the evidential problem, not Mackie's logical formulation. D is a premise from various theodicies (like the soul-making theodicy) that Mackie's argument is designed to challenge.

Question 3

Imagine a world with only a single, minimally painful event—one person gets a paper cut that heals instantly. A philosopher argues that the existence of even this trivial evil is sufficient to demonstrate the non-existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. This philosopher's argument must be a version of:

  1. the evidential problem of evil, because the paper cut is empirical evidence.
  2. the logical problem of evil, because it asserts that any evil, regardless of degree, creates a logical incompatibility. (correct answer)
  3. a soul-making theodicy, because it focuses on a minor evil that could easily be justified for character development.
  4. skeptical theism, because it questions whether such a trivial event should be considered evil at all.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The logical problem of evil argues that there is a logical contradiction between the existence of a 3-O God and the existence of any evil. The quantity or quality of the evil is irrelevant to the structure of the argument. Therefore, an argument that hinges on even the most trivial evil to prove God's non-existence must be framing the problem as one of logical contradiction. A is incorrect because the evidential problem gains its strength from the amount, intensity, or gratuitousness of evil; a single trivial paper cut would constitute extremely weak evidence. C is a response to the problem, not the problem itself. D is a critique of the problem's premise, but the question states the philosopher considers the event to be an evil.

Question 4

A philosopher argues: "The sheer quantity and appalling nature of suffering in the world—such as a fawn dying horribly in a forest fire—while perhaps not a logical contradiction to God's existence, makes it profoundly unreasonable to believe in an all-good, all-powerful being."

The philosopher's argument, as presented in the passage, is a formulation of which version of the problem of evil?

  1. The logical version, because it presents a specific example of evil to challenge theism.
  2. The evidential version, because it focuses on the quantity and quality of evil as strong evidence against God's existence. (correct answer)
  3. The logical version, because it concludes that belief in God is unreasonable, implying a logical flaw.
  4. A soul-making theodicy, because it uses the example of animal suffering to explore God's purposes.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The argument is an example of the evidential problem of evil. Its force comes from the quantity ('sheer quantity') and quality ('appalling nature') of evil, which it claims makes belief in God 'unreasonable' or improbable, not logically impossible. This is the hallmark of the evidential version. A is incorrect because merely using an example does not make an argument the logical version; the logical version claims a formal contradiction exists with any evil. C is incorrect because 'unreasonable' points to a conclusion based on the weight of evidence, whereas the logical version claims belief is 'impossible' due to a contradiction. D is incorrect because a theodicy is an attempt to solve the problem of evil by justifying God's actions; this argument is posing the problem.

Question 5

A central component of the evidential problem of evil involves an inference from 'We cannot perceive a morally sufficient reason for God to permit this evil' to 'There is no morally sufficient reason for God to permit this evil.' Theists who critique this inference, often called 'skeptical theists,' argue it is weak primarily because it:

  1. commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.
  2. fails to distinguish properly between moral and natural evils.
  3. wrongly assumes that human cognitive abilities are adequate to survey all possible divine reasons. (correct answer)
  4. presupposes the non-existence of God, thereby begging the question against the theist.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is the core of the skeptical theist response to the evidential problem of evil. They argue that the inference from 'we see no reason' to 'there is no reason' is unjustified given the vast cognitive distance between humans and an omniscient God. It's plausible, they claim, that God has reasons for permitting evil that are beyond our limited comprehension. A is incorrect; this is an informal or inductive inference, not a formal deductive fallacy. B is incorrect because this skeptical response applies equally to both moral and natural evils that appear gratuitous. D is incorrect because the evidential argument does not presuppose God's non-existence; it argues that the evidence of evil makes God's non-existence probable.

Question 6

A critic presents the case of a fawn suffering for days in a forest fire. A theist responds, 'While we cannot comprehend the reason for this specific event, an omniscient God could surely have a morally sufficient reason for permitting it, perhaps one related to the overall consistency of natural laws which themselves produce a great good.'

The theist's response is primarily structured to undermine which specific formulation of the problem of evil?

  1. The logical version, by demonstrating that the fawn's suffering is not actually an instance of evil.
  2. The evidential version, by challenging the inference from 'an evil appears gratuitous' to 'an evil is gratuitous.' (correct answer)
  3. The logical version, by proving that a world with consistent natural laws is a greater good that justifies all suffering.
  4. The evidential version, by providing a complete and verifiable explanation for why the fawn had to suffer.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The critic's example (the fawn) is a classic case used to support the evidential problem by highlighting apparently gratuitous suffering. The theist's response is a classic move of skeptical theism. By saying 'we cannot comprehend' but God 'could surely have a... reason,' the theist is directly attacking the key inference of the evidential argument: that we are in a good position to judge whether an evil is pointless. The response aims to show this inference is weak. A is incorrect because the response doesn't deny the suffering is evil. C is incorrect because the response doesn't prove the greater good; it only posits it as a possibility to block the critic's inference. D is incorrect because the response explicitly admits we cannot provide a complete explanation; it is a defense based on cognitive limitation.

Question 7

A philosopher modifies the problem of evil: "The issue is not the amount of suffering, but the very coexistence of a perfect, necessary being and a contingent, imperfect world. Perfection cannot create, or coexist with, imperfection without contradiction." This argument's structure is most analogous to which version of the problem of evil?

  1. The evidential version, because it relies on the empirical evidence of an 'imperfect world.'
  2. Both, because it uses an empirical premise about the world to derive a logically necessary conclusion.
  3. Neither, as it is a form of theodicy attempting to reconcile God's perfection with the world's state.
  4. The logical version, because it alleges a conceptual incoherence between 'perfection' and 'imperfection.' (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing arguments about God's existence, you need to distinguish between the logical and evidential versions of the problem of evil. The logical version claims there's a direct contradiction between God's attributes and the existence of evil, while the evidential version argues that the amount or type of evil makes God's existence improbable. This modified argument follows the logical version's structure perfectly. It identifies what the philosopher sees as a fundamental contradiction: perfection and imperfection cannot coexist without logical inconsistency. The argument doesn't rely on measuring suffering or weighing evidence—it claims the very concepts are incompatible, making God's existence logically impossible rather than merely unlikely. Option A misses the mark because while the argument mentions an "imperfect world," it's not gathering empirical evidence about suffering. Instead, it's making a conceptual claim about what perfection entails. Option B fails because although the argument references the world's state, its conclusion flows from logical analysis of concepts, not from empirical premises leading to necessary conclusions. Option C completely misunderstands the argument's purpose—this isn't a theodicy attempting to reconcile God with evil, but rather an argument claiming such reconciliation is impossible due to conceptual contradiction. The key insight is recognizing that logical problems of evil focus on alleged contradictions between concepts (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience versus evil/imperfection), while evidential versions focus on the probability that such a God would permit the specific evil we observe. Watch for this conceptual versus empirical distinction when analyzing arguments about divine attributes.

Question 8

Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense posits that it is at least possible that God could not create creatures with free will who are incapable of choosing evil. This defense is primarily designed as a response to which of the following?

  1. The evidential problem of evil, by explaining why the specific amount of suffering we observe is not excessive.
  2. The problem of natural evil, by attributing events like earthquakes to the free will of non-human spirits.
  3. The logical problem of evil, by showing there is no formal contradiction in the coexistence of God and moral evil. (correct answer)
  4. Skeptical theism, by arguing that humans can, in fact, know God's precise reasons for allowing evil.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Plantinga's specific goal was to refute the claim of the logical problem of evil that God and evil are logically incompatible. A 'defense' only needs to show that their coexistence is logically possible, not that it is plausible or that we know the true reason. By introducing the possibility that even an omnipotent God could not guarantee free creatures would only do good, he breaks the supposed logical contradiction. A is incorrect; a defense is not a full theodicy that justifies the amount of evil. B, while a part of Plantinga's broader discussion, is an extension of the core defense, which is aimed at the logical problem of moral evil. D is incorrect; Plantinga's argument is about what's possible, not what we can know for certain about God's reasons.

Question 9

A student, asked to summarize the evidential problem of evil, writes: "The fact that any evil at all exists in the world is logically inconsistent with the existence of a God who is all-powerful and all-good." What is the primary conceptual error in this student's summary?

  1. The student has failed to include God's omniscience as a relevant divine attribute.
  2. The student is presenting a theodicy (a defense of God) rather than a problem for theism.
  3. The student has incorrectly assumed that evil actually exists, a premise many philosophers reject.
  4. The student has described the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about the problem of evil, you need to distinguish between two distinct philosophical arguments: the logical problem and the evidential problem of evil. The logical problem of evil claims that the mere existence of any evil whatsoever creates a logical contradiction with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. This argument says that even one instance of evil makes God's existence logically impossible. The student's summary perfectly captures this version—they're arguing that evil and God are logically inconsistent. The evidential problem of evil, however, makes a much more modest claim. It argues that the amount, intensity, and apparent randomness of evil in our world provides strong evidence against God's existence, even if it doesn't prove God's non-existence with logical certainty. This probabilistic argument focuses on the sheer quantity and gratuitous nature of suffering we observe. Answer D correctly identifies that the student described the logical problem, not the evidential problem. Answer A is wrong because while God's omniscience is relevant to discussions of evil, its omission isn't the primary error here. Answer B misses the mark entirely—the student is clearly presenting an argument against God's existence, not defending it. Answer C incorrectly suggests that philosophers widely reject evil's existence, when in fact most philosophers across the spectrum acknowledge that evil (or at least suffering) exists. Remember this distinction: logical problems claim impossibility through contradiction, while evidential problems argue against probability based on observed evidence. The keywords "logically inconsistent" signal you're dealing with the logical version.

Question 10

Argument A: "No morally sufficient reason could possibly justify the intentional torture of an innocent child. Therefore, a God who permits such an act cannot be omnibenevolent and omnipotent."

Argument B: "The sheer number of children who suffer horribly, when weighed against the proposed goods of free will or character development, provides overwhelming evidence against the existence of a loving God."

Which of the following accurately distinguishes between Argument A and Argument B?

  1. Argument A is the logical problem of evil asserting a necessary conceptual incompatibility, while Argument B is the evidential problem weighing evidence. (correct answer)
  2. Argument A focuses on moral evil caused by humans, while Argument B focuses on natural evil like disease.
  3. Argument A is an example of a theodicy providing a justification, while Argument B formulates a problem.
  4. Argument A relies on a purely emotional appeal, while Argument B is based on rigorous statistical analysis.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Argument A makes a strong, absolute claim: 'No...reason could possibly justify...'. This language of necessity and impossibility points to a logical or conceptual contradiction, which is the hallmark of the logical problem of evil. Argument B, in contrast, uses comparative and probabilistic language: 'sheer number,' 'weighed against,' 'overwhelming evidence.' This is the method of the evidential problem of evil. B is an inaccurate distinction; both arguments are concerned with the suffering of children, which can have both moral and natural causes. C is incorrect as both are formulations of the problem of evil. D mischaracterizes the arguments; while they have emotional content, their philosophical distinction lies in their logical structure (deductive vs. inductive).

Question 11

A critic of theism could grant the success of Plantinga's Free Will Defense (thereby conceding that the logical problem of moral evil is solved) and yet still maintain that belief in a 3-O God is unreasonable. What kind of argument would this critic most likely employ to continue their case?

  1. A renewed logical argument focusing on the incompatibility of divine foreknowledge and human free will.
  2. An argument claiming that the very concept of an omnipotent being is logically incoherent on its own terms.
  3. A deductive argument aiming to prove that natural evils like animal suffering are logically impossible under God.
  4. An evidential argument based on the immense scale and horrific nature of both moral and natural evil. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about the problem of evil in philosophy, you need to distinguish between two fundamentally different approaches: logical arguments and evidential arguments. The logical problem of evil claims that the existence of any evil whatsoever is logically incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. Plantinga's Free Will Defense successfully counters this by showing that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil (namely, to preserve genuine free will). However, even if the logical problem is solved, a critic can shift to an evidential argument. This approach doesn't claim that evil makes God's existence logically impossible, but rather that the sheer quantity, intensity, and apparent gratuitousness of evil in our world makes God's existence highly improbable. The scale of suffering—from natural disasters to horrific moral evils—provides evidence against theism even if it doesn't constitute a logical disproof. Option A fails because it shifts to a different logical problem (foreknowledge vs. free will) rather than continuing the evil-focused critique. Option B abandons the evil argument entirely to attack omnipotence directly. Option C attempts another logical argument specifically about natural evil, but the question indicates the critic would likely move beyond logical arguments altogether after Plantinga's success. Option D correctly identifies the evidential approach, which allows the critic to incorporate both moral and natural evil while avoiding the logical constraints that Plantinga navigated. Remember: logical arguments claim impossibility, while evidential arguments claim improbability. When logical approaches fail, evidential strategies often follow.

Question 12

Let P = A 3-O (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) God exists. Let Q = Evil exists. The logical problem of evil asserts that (P & Q) entails a contradiction. In contrast, the evidential problem of evil asserts that:

  1. P → ¬Q (If God exists, then evil does not exist).
  2. Pr(P|Q) < Pr(P) (The probability of God's existence, given evil, is lower than its prior probability). (correct answer)
  3. Pr(Q|P) = 0 (The probability of evil, given God's existence, is zero).
  4. ¬(P & Q) is equivalent to a necessary truth.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. This is a formal way of stating the core claim of the evidential (or probabilistic) argument from evil. It argues that the existence of evil (Q) makes the existence of God (P) less likely than it would be otherwise. It is a claim about conditional probability. A is a premise used within the logical problem of evil to generate the contradiction, not the conclusion of the evidential problem. C is a related probabilistic claim but focuses on the probability of evil, whereas the evidential argument's conclusion is about the probability of God. D is a formal way of stating the conclusion of the logical problem of evil, as it means P and Q cannot possibly be true together.

Question 13

To successfully demonstrate the conclusion of the logical problem of evil, what must a proponent show?

  1. That the amount of evil in the world is far greater than any plausible justifying good.
  2. That the set of propositions {God is omnipotent, God is omniscient, God is omnibenevolent, Evil exists} contains a logical contradiction. (correct answer)
  3. That no existing theodicy, such as the Free Will Defense, can adequately account for all instances of natural evil.
  4. That human cognitive limitations prevent us from understanding God's ultimate plan for creation.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument that aims to show that the core tenets of theism are logically inconsistent with the existence of any evil. Therefore, its proponent must demonstrate a formal contradiction among the relevant propositions. A describes the burden of proof for the evidential problem of evil, which argues from the quantity and type of evil. C describes a strategy for supporting the evidential problem of evil by undermining potential counterarguments, but it is not the core requirement for the logical problem itself. D is a premise used in skeptical theism, which is a response to the problem of evil, not a part of the problem's formulation.

Question 14

J.L. Mackie's influential formulation of the logical problem of evil argues that the theist's position is contradictory. To make the contradiction explicit, he claims the theist implicitly accepts additional premises. Which of the following is one such premise that Mackie identifies as part of the inconsistent set?

  1. Evil is merely a privation of the good and has no real existence.
  2. A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. (correct answer)
  3. The existence of gratuitous suffering makes God's existence improbable.
  4. Some evil is a necessary condition for the existence of certain greater goods.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. J.L. Mackie argued that the contradiction in theism isn't immediately obvious from {God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent, Evil exists}. He proposed that theists are committed to additional principles, such as 'A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can' and 'There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do'. These premises, when combined with the others, generate an explicit contradiction. A is a premise from the Augustinian theodicy, a response to the problem. C is the central idea of the evidential problem, not Mackie's logical formulation. D is a premise from various theodicies (like the soul-making theodicy) that Mackie's argument is designed to challenge.

Question 15

Consider two claims:

  1. "It is logically impossible for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God to coexist with the specific evil E."

  2. "The existence of the specific evil E, given its nature and context, renders the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God highly improbable." What is the primary difference in the argumentative burden between Claim 1 and Claim 2?

  1. Claim 1 must show a conceptual contradiction, while Claim 2 must show that E serves no greater good we can conceive of. (correct answer)
  2. Claim 1 is concerned with moral evil, while Claim 2 is concerned with natural evil.
  3. Claim 1 can be defeated by a possible explanation for E, while Claim 2 requires a definitive, true explanation for E.
  4. Claim 1 is a deductive argument about possibility, while Claim 2 is an emotional argument about suffering.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Claim 1 represents the logical problem of evil, which carries the burden of proving a formal, conceptual contradiction. It's an all-or-nothing deductive claim. Claim 2 represents the evidential problem of evil. Its burden is to establish that a particular evil is likely gratuitous (serving no overriding good), which then functions as strong evidence against God's existence. This is an inductive, probabilistic task. B is incorrect, as both argument forms can be applied to either moral or natural evil. C has the burdens reversed: the logical problem (Claim 1) can be defeated by showing a mere possibility that resolves the contradiction (a 'defense'), whereas the evidential problem (Claim 2) is often countered by a plausible explanation (a 'theodicy'). D incorrectly characterizes Claim 2 as emotional; while it deals with suffering, it is structured as a probabilistic, evidence-based argument.

Question 16

A critic presents the case of a fawn suffering for days in a forest fire. A theist responds, 'While we cannot comprehend the reason for this specific event, an omniscient God could surely have a morally sufficient reason for permitting it, perhaps one related to the overall consistency of natural laws which themselves produce a great good.'

The theist's response is primarily structured to undermine which specific formulation of the problem of evil?

  1. The logical version, by demonstrating that the fawn's suffering is not actually an instance of evil.
  2. The evidential version, by challenging the inference from 'an evil appears gratuitous' to 'an evil is gratuitous.' (correct answer)
  3. The logical version, by proving that a world with consistent natural laws is a greater good that justifies all suffering.
  4. The evidential version, by providing a complete and verifiable explanation for why the fawn had to suffer.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The critic's example (the fawn) is a classic case used to support the evidential problem by highlighting apparently gratuitous suffering. The theist's response is a classic move of skeptical theism. By saying 'we cannot comprehend' but God 'could surely have a... reason,' the theist is directly attacking the key inference of the evidential argument: that we are in a good position to judge whether an evil is pointless. The response aims to show this inference is weak. A is incorrect because the response doesn't deny the suffering is evil. C is incorrect because the response doesn't prove the greater good; it only posits it as a possibility to block the critic's inference. D is incorrect because the response explicitly admits we cannot provide a complete explanation; it is a defense based on cognitive limitation.

Question 17

A philosopher modifies the problem of evil: "The issue is not the amount of suffering, but the very coexistence of a perfect, necessary being and a contingent, imperfect world. Perfection cannot create, or coexist with, imperfection without contradiction." This argument's structure is most analogous to which version of the problem of evil?

  1. The evidential version, because it relies on the empirical evidence of an 'imperfect world.'
  2. Both, because it uses an empirical premise about the world to derive a logically necessary conclusion.
  3. Neither, as it is a form of theodicy attempting to reconcile God's perfection with the world's state.
  4. The logical version, because it alleges a conceptual incoherence between 'perfection' and 'imperfection.' (correct answer)
Explanation: When analyzing arguments about God's existence, you need to distinguish between the logical and evidential versions of the problem of evil. The logical version claims there's a direct contradiction between God's attributes and the existence of evil, while the evidential version argues that the amount or type of evil makes God's existence improbable. This modified argument follows the logical version's structure perfectly. It identifies what the philosopher sees as a fundamental contradiction: perfection and imperfection cannot coexist without logical inconsistency. The argument doesn't rely on measuring suffering or weighing evidence—it claims the very concepts are incompatible, making God's existence logically impossible rather than merely unlikely. Option A misses the mark because while the argument mentions an "imperfect world," it's not gathering empirical evidence about suffering. Instead, it's making a conceptual claim about what perfection entails. Option B fails because although the argument references the world's state, its conclusion flows from logical analysis of concepts, not from empirical premises leading to necessary conclusions. Option C completely misunderstands the argument's purpose—this isn't a theodicy attempting to reconcile God with evil, but rather an argument claiming such reconciliation is impossible due to conceptual contradiction. The key insight is recognizing that logical problems of evil focus on alleged contradictions between concepts (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience versus evil/imperfection), while evidential versions focus on the probability that such a God would permit the specific evil we observe. Watch for this conceptual versus empirical distinction when analyzing arguments about divine attributes.

Question 18

A student, asked to summarize the evidential problem of evil, writes: "The fact that any evil at all exists in the world is logically inconsistent with the existence of a God who is all-powerful and all-good." What is the primary conceptual error in this student's summary?

  1. The student has failed to include God's omniscience as a relevant divine attribute.
  2. The student is presenting a theodicy (a defense of God) rather than a problem for theism.
  3. The student has incorrectly assumed that evil actually exists, a premise many philosophers reject.
  4. The student has described the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about the problem of evil, you need to distinguish between two distinct philosophical arguments: the logical problem and the evidential problem of evil. The logical problem of evil claims that the mere existence of any evil whatsoever creates a logical contradiction with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. This argument says that even one instance of evil makes God's existence logically impossible. The student's summary perfectly captures this version—they're arguing that evil and God are logically inconsistent. The evidential problem of evil, however, makes a much more modest claim. It argues that the amount, intensity, and apparent randomness of evil in our world provides strong evidence against God's existence, even if it doesn't prove God's non-existence with logical certainty. This probabilistic argument focuses on the sheer quantity and gratuitous nature of suffering we observe. Answer D correctly identifies that the student described the logical problem, not the evidential problem. Answer A is wrong because while God's omniscience is relevant to discussions of evil, its omission isn't the primary error here. Answer B misses the mark entirely—the student is clearly presenting an argument against God's existence, not defending it. Answer C incorrectly suggests that philosophers widely reject evil's existence, when in fact most philosophers across the spectrum acknowledge that evil (or at least suffering) exists. Remember this distinction: logical problems claim impossibility through contradiction, while evidential problems argue against probability based on observed evidence. The keywords "logically inconsistent" signal you're dealing with the logical version.

Question 19

A critic of theism could grant the success of Plantinga's Free Will Defense (thereby conceding that the logical problem of moral evil is solved) and yet still maintain that belief in a 3-O God is unreasonable. What kind of argument would this critic most likely employ to continue their case?

  1. A renewed logical argument focusing on the incompatibility of divine foreknowledge and human free will.
  2. An argument claiming that the very concept of an omnipotent being is logically incoherent on its own terms.
  3. A deductive argument aiming to prove that natural evils like animal suffering are logically impossible under God.
  4. An evidential argument based on the immense scale and horrific nature of both moral and natural evil. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about the problem of evil in philosophy, you need to distinguish between two fundamentally different approaches: logical arguments and evidential arguments. The logical problem of evil claims that the existence of any evil whatsoever is logically incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. Plantinga's Free Will Defense successfully counters this by showing that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil (namely, to preserve genuine free will). However, even if the logical problem is solved, a critic can shift to an evidential argument. This approach doesn't claim that evil makes God's existence logically impossible, but rather that the sheer quantity, intensity, and apparent gratuitousness of evil in our world makes God's existence highly improbable. The scale of suffering—from natural disasters to horrific moral evils—provides evidence against theism even if it doesn't constitute a logical disproof. Option A fails because it shifts to a different logical problem (foreknowledge vs. free will) rather than continuing the evil-focused critique. Option B abandons the evil argument entirely to attack omnipotence directly. Option C attempts another logical argument specifically about natural evil, but the question indicates the critic would likely move beyond logical arguments altogether after Plantinga's success. Option D correctly identifies the evidential approach, which allows the critic to incorporate both moral and natural evil while avoiding the logical constraints that Plantinga navigated. Remember: logical arguments claim impossibility, while evidential arguments claim improbability. When logical approaches fail, evidential strategies often follow.

Question 20

A proponent of the Free Will Defense argues that God permits moral evil as a necessary consequence of granting humans the great good of free will. How would a critic employing the evidential problem of evil most effectively counter this specific defense of moral evil?

  1. By arguing that the concepts of 'free will' and 'divine omniscience' are logically incompatible.
  2. By pointing out that the Free Will Defense does not adequately explain the existence of natural evil, such as diseases or disasters.
  3. By asserting that a world with perfectly behaved automatons and no suffering would be metaphysically better than a world with free will and evil.
  4. By arguing that the amount and intensity of moral evil is far greater than what seems necessary for the preservation of meaningful free will. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. The evidential argument focuses on the evidence provided by the quantity, quality, and distribution of evil. A key evidential response to the Free Will Defense is to grant the value of free will but argue that the observed amount of horrific moral evil (e.g., the Holocaust) is gratuitous and provides strong evidence that outweighs the good of free will. A shifts the debate to a different theological problem (omniscience vs. free will), not the problem of evil. B is a valid and common criticism of the Free Will Defense's scope, but it doesn't directly counter the defense of moral evil itself; it just points out the defense is incomplete. C is a philosophical challenge to the value of free will, but it is not a uniquely evidential style of argument; the evidential argument focuses on the evidence from the actual world.